Feedback for August 1999

If you think evolutionary science is on "shakey" ground, you need to take it upon yourself to do some research. You can start on this website, or go to my site, which is geared towards the average layman: switch.to/evolution.

If there are any legitimate findings of creationism, I haven't heard of them. It is merely a scientific-sounding justification of scripture.

The scripture you quote conveys nothing to me. Does it mean that we should not bother to investigate nature?

You didn't like that I exposed your false analogy? In your emotional tirade, you seemed to have missed the fact that I never wrote that the courts said "you couldn't have any subject matter that in some way involved creationism." If the controversy between creationism and evolution comes up in a history or social studies class, fine. But it should not be dignified by teaching it in a science class by a science teacher presenting it as science, whether directly or indirectly via a student debate. Your discussion, in a class about the politics of science, is not at all the same thing as an evolution vs. creation debate in a general science class.

Once again, and this time I'll type more slowly so Lee can understand it, slavery MUST be taught when you are learning about the Civil War because it is pertinent... it all belongs in a history class. Therefore, there's no need to jump to the conclusion that it's a ploy by pro-slavery groups. But, creationism is not science, and DOES NOT belong in a science class. The courts have clearly said so (MCLEAN V. ARKANSAS [1982], Edwards v. Aguillard [1987], Webster v. New Lenox School District [1990]). Therefore, an attempt to introduce creationism by a "student-led" debate into an area in which it is prohibited is an illegal infiltration. None of your ignorant ranting has changed the facts.

I actually feel sorry for creationists being represented by a person like you.

The fact is that no two Christian sects agree completely on what God's message is, and how the bible is to be interpreted. Above that, there are hundreds of religions actively being practiced in the world, and the adherents of each one believe theirs is the only one that's valid.

But MOST importantly, is that science is the effort by humans to describe and explain natural phenomena by naturalistic means through observation, experimentation, and the examination of evidence. If the findings of science contradict a particular "holy" book, what are scientists to do? Cease experimentation in that area, for fear of offending someone? Some Christian sects do not allow their children to receive medical treatment... should scientists cease all medical research in order not to offend these people? Should the germ theory of disease be excluded from medical school?

This is the concept of the "key innovation", which allows all descendents of a new species to diversify in ways that are distinct from its cousins' descendents. One key innovation is the mammalian ear bones. Another is the evolution (in the dinosaurs at first) of feathers as insulation or display features. Others include internal fetal development, and so forth.

Plants are thought to have originated in the inclusion of cyanobacteria into the cells of some single celled organism, which enabled them to photosynthesise, making possible the range of plant forms we see today in the sea and on land. Animals have a similar "endosymbiont" - the mitochondria that generate the energy used to drive muscles, and other processes in the cells.

So far back as we can tell, life has common ancestry, with these sorts of "horizontal transmission", until one gets back to the hypothetical ancestor of all life. In that case, there is some evidence that different organisms could share their genes occasionally, so that the universal ancestor is really a pool of different organisms. Bacteria can do this even today.

The trick of it is, Phillip Johnson is not challenging the theory of evolution. He is challenging a strawman, a version of evolution that he has created in his mind and substituted for the real thing. Folks who don't know better think he's talking about the real thing; that's why pages like our Critiques of Phillip Johnson FAQ exist, to make that plain.

Johnson is well-versed in the court rulings on creationism and is very careful not to mention religion overtly. That does not mean he is not attempting to promote religion. He's a smart guy; there's no doubt about that.

To understand the answer to the question, your boyfriend needs to learn a lot more about how evolution works.

Typically, I find that people who ask these types of questions haven't learned enough about the subject they're criticizing. It's kind of like someone saying "Hey, an airplane is way heavier than air... there's no way it could get off the ground," before bothering to read anything about the physics of aviation.

The answer to his question is this: species have not stopped evolving. Evolution might be slowed if a species lived in an unchanging environment, but even then, in the absence of environmental selective pressures, the process of genetic drift ensures that species will continue to evolve.

Why haven't any more chimps evolved into humans? Well, for starters, chimps never did evolve into humans. Humans did not evolve from modern apes, but rather humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists. Because we share a common ancestor with chimps, we share many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with them. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past.

Evolution is a branching or splitting process in which populations split off from one another and gradually become different. As the two groups become isolated from each other, they stop sharing genes, and eventually genetic differences increase until members of the groups can no longer interbreed. At this point, they have become separate species. Through time, these two species might give rise to new species, and so on through millennia.

Since we did not evolve from chimps, chimps are totally unaffected by human evolution. All of human evolution occurred after the split from our common ancestor.

It's just like you and your brother... you both do not necessarily share the same fate, do you? If your brother moves to another country, do his actions and descendants have any affect on you and yours?

Another way to think about it is that a species is like a river. We'll call the common ancestor of chimps and humans the main river. If that river branches off into two streams, there is no reason that both streams, chimps and humans, should both go in the same direction.

By that view, every parasitic organism developed after the Fall. Every predator only took up predation after the Fall. And yet the many specialized adaptations needed for either the parasitic or predaceous life history were, quite incidentally, already present and ready to go, and were not the result of an evolutionary history.

I fear I must demur from accepting the assertion that "original sin" explains biological phenomena at all, let alone better than science.

Wesley

If you want to believe that there is a god as some sort of "ultimate provider", then by all means, do so. No one here is interested in talking you out of it.

But, if you make claims as to the authenticity of scientific theories like evolution, be prepared to back them up. Just because you have chosen not to educate yourself on the subject of biology, does not mean that evolution did not, and does not, occur. This is not an insult. I am simply pointing out that if you cannot describe the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, and you can't list some of the physical and experimental evidence that supports it, then how in the world can you be so certain that it is not the truth?

Charles Darwin was intending to enter the clergy when he began his travels, and by the time he died, I believe he claimed himself as an agnostic. But whether he was a pious Christian or an athiest, like all other scientists, his theories stand or fall by the strength of the evidence used to support them. If you believe he is in hell, so be it, if that makes you feel better. But then you must also accept that some of the most intelligent and benevolent of the Human Species are there with him, like Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Carl Sagan, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie, Albert Schweitzer, Mahatma Ghandi, Mark Twain, and many, many others.

Charles Darwin did not "start" the evolutionary theory-- he was the first to propose a viable mechanism by which evolution could be scientifically explained.

We do not, and cannot, teach the bible in public schools. That would violate the right of every non-Christian child and parent-- many millions of them. The deist founding fathers of this country wisely foresaw such a possiblity, and hence we have a Bill of Rights which protects the minority from the majority. American kids are not taught lies in public schools. Did you learn that from the Discovery Channel as well?

By the way, I find the Book of Job to be disgusting, heartless and obscene.

What science requires is that the scientist formulate a hypothesis, or model, that is falsifiable. This hypothesis is then tested against observations. Experiments are nothing more than a method for generating observations, but those observations don't have to come from experiments.

No one has ever built a star or a volcano in the lab, but we know a great deal about how both function by observing a lot of them. One scientist says, "I think we should see such-and-such because of blah-blah-blah," and then looks for such-and-such. If he finds such-and-such, then that is evidence for blah-blah-blah. If not, then blah-blah-blah has been falsified.

Evolutionary theories, like theories in astronomy or geology, do not usually have much experimental confirmation (though in some cases, they do). But they do have an unbelievable amount of observational data to back them up, so much so that the basic theory of evolution has not been in scientific doubt for over a century.

Belief doesn't enter into the picture.

The answer is that we don't have all the observations that would settle the question "what is the main way evolution happens, given that evolution is observed?" We would need a better fossil record, and more information about existing living things to do this, and there are only so many biologists and so many fossils, etc.

So there is dispute about whether evolution happens slowly, quickly, or in jumps. But as the evidence comes in, it appears not to be as simple as was once thought - some lineages are slowly evolving in some respects but rapidly evolving in others. Some species remain stable for many millions of years, others do not.

These are questions of facts, and to resolve them, we need much more evidence than we now have. Perhaps you could put in a good word with your local representative for more funding to do the necessary research?

Personally, I got started in opposing theistic anti-evolutionary arguments based upon my commitment to truth, which came from my faith. I could not simply stand by while others were led into belief in lies and error, which were the dominant, if not defining, character of the SciCre literature I first encountered. So I disagree about who might be weighted with the burden of lost souls at judgement. Those who promote false things as apologetics do far more harm to fragile belief when those falsehoods are exposed than the most dastardly evangelical atheist could hope to accomplish.

The expressed sentiment of pity put me in mind of a verse, Matthew chapter 6, verse 5.

6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Wesley

If we are responsible for providing an individual with information on which to base a choice, are we responsible for the choice he or she makes? No. Should we withold the information from the public? Now THAT would be irresponsible, and a disservice to the human endeavor. Science will continue to advance, regardless of the objections of particular religions. We cannot go backwards.

As far as your wind analogy, I have to tell you it's not accurate. Wind can be measured, wind can be explained scientifically, and everyone on earth agrees that wind is real. God, on the other hand, cannot be measured, cannot be explained, and hardly anyone on earth truly agrees as to just what he is, or whether or not he exists. I hope you can see the difference.

I understand that your beliefs make you feel really good, but honestly, I am not in "darkness."

You begin with "Some believe". What is far more significant than belief is what you can substantiate with physical evidence and verify through repeatable experiments.

For example, what is the physcial evidence for your belief that creation days were 7000 years each? And the same goes for the rest of your letter. Where is the evidence for all these claims? Even IF creation days were 7000 years (contrary to the bible saying that to God, a day is 1000 years), and assuming 6 creation days, that still only totals 42,000 years, when wolly mammoths roamed the tundra and neanderthals lived in northern caves.

You state that the order of creation fits with what the bible says. Well, the bible gives two different sequences of creation, so are you hedging your bets there? Which sequence is correct? And you can hardly draw a realistic view of the emergence of different animal groups from the scant story in Genesis. It just doesn't cut it.

The world-wide flood did not happen. What Would We Expect to Find if the World Had Flooded is a short and easy to read list of geological evidence which absolutely refutes the flood. Inland sea fossils are evidence that, at one time millions of years ago, that land once was a sea floor. Go Frozen Mammoths for frozen mammoths. The claim that the grand canyon is the result of a flood is simply ridiculous. And if, as you say, dinosaurs were extinct by the time of man, why are their bones found in strata supposedly laid down by the flood, 4000 years ago?

No, the evidence does not go both ways. Creationists twist facts to suit theories, not theories to fit facts. And the bible has been proven wrong time and time again. From huge historical mistakes, like the absence of the global flood, to small but significant errors like the value of pi. The writers of the old testament thought, like the Babylonians from whom they got their philosophies, that the world was a flat, round disc supported upon pillars.

Creationist arguments are represented in their entirety. Creationists have represented themselves adequately on their own websites, which are all listed under the links section, which is probably the largest list of creationist links available anywhere.

Creationist websites, on the other hand, DO NOT fairly represent the evolutionist arguments and theories. They frequently use misquotes and straw man theories. Documentation of such tactics can be found on this site. Missing Supernova Remnants as Evidence of a Young Universe? A Case of Fabrication is one I uncovered myself.

Creationist groups may be small, but they generally well-organized and funded. Moreover, they have the commitment that only service to one's God can engender. They have a simple and straightforward (if misleading) message, and they are persuasive to those who seek simple and straightforward answers, who are committed to a particular vision of the divine, and who are disgruntled with what they perceive to be the moral decay of society.

The creationists have learned from their defeats in the courts. They know that a law declaring Genesis 1 & 2 to be accurate will be struck down as unconstitutional. But they know, too, that their effectiveness lies at the local level, where the opposition is less organized and where the press pays less attention. And so they fund particular candidates for state representative, or encourage "right-thinking" church members to actively support particular school board members. They count on "stealth" candidates with hidden agendas not revealed until they come into power.

The battle in Kansas was not won or lost when the Board of Education voted. It was decided years earlier, when the current board members were elected.

What can the ordinary citizen do? What the ordinary citizen can and should be doing at every election, not just presidential elections. Turn off the sitcom and study the candidates. Read about them in the newspaper. Call their headquarters and ask for a position paper. Read their web sites. Buy the political reporter of your local newspaper a drink or two, and ask them what the latest news is. Talk to your family and friends. Talk to those who disagree with you politically and see who they're supporting. Start a recall petition. Contribute money to candidates you agree with. Get involved with political organizations you support. And above all, make your vote count for every candidate in every election.

If the concerned citizens of Kansas decide that they do not wish the stigma of this decision hanging over them, they can most certainly reverse it at the polls.

God and Evolution

Evolution and Philosophy

and

Evolution and Chance which contains the FAQ you refer to and another one from a more philosophical perspective.

As to the interpretation of Genesis FAQ, I think it would be a good idea, but as yet nobody has offered to write it who knows the history of the exegesis of Genesis properly. We know that Origen was a non-literalist, and Philo of Alexandria also (a pre-Christian era rabbinical scholar).

Are you saying that science, the inquiry into how nature works, is unrighteous, and those who investigate nature are going to incur god's wrath because of it? Biblical verses do not erase the fossil record, or the genetic record. They do not refute the findings of science.

Evolutionists are condemned also by any religous fundamentalists, whether they are muslim, hindu, native American, or any of the major world religions. Why should your condemnation be any more valid or troubling to me than theirs?

Jesus also taught that God's view of divorce was different from what had been given as law before due to the hardness of men's hearts. Actually, we're talking about the same passage, aren't we? So in order to support a view of scripture that indicates an inflexible and unchanging aspect, you are actually citing scripture that says that what God tells us changes over time with what man is ready to hear and accept. Those who believe in a revelatory faith can accommodate the truth of divine grace and the findings of science. Those with a hardened and inflexible view of faith will continue to insist that God conform to their interpretations.

Wesley

The reader may be laboring under the misapprehension that the theory of evolution requires that one species "transform" into another, or that a cow should give birth to a goat, or something similar. This is not the case. Species do not "become" other species; instead they radiate like branches on a tree. Close to the joint between two branches, the differences are negligible; it is only at the far end of the branches that the differences seem large.

That reconsideration leads to the pursuit of non equilibrium thermodynamics. This is the proper tool for analyzing the thermodynamic behavior of the Earth and biosphere, but is never used by creationists. It includes an analogous application of the second law which which describes the overall nonequilibrium system as a collection of sub systems, each of which is in thermodynamic equilibrium, but not isolated. The analysis then centers on identifying the sub systems that are sources or sinks of entropy, and the entropy and energy flow between sub systems. Obviously, this is an enormous task if applied to the Earth and biosphere, and no wonder if creationists are daunted by the magnitude of effort required. Nevertheless, it is the only proper way to describe the thermodynamic behavior of the biosphere during evolution.

Of course, the other major cerationist mistakes are the assumption that entropy and order/disorder are strictly analogous (they are not), and that evolution moves from disorder to order, which has yet to be demonstrated.

First off, saying "Well this is just too improbable, the odds against it are staggering" is not a scientific statment of any kind. It isn't even a valid argument; it is an opinion, with no supporting evidence. The real problem with this statement, however, is that the person making it assumes that the world we see today is the only possible world that could exist. But if one makes the very valid and likely assumption that all possible world scenarios (one of which happens to have humans) have equal validity and had equal chance of occuring, then the statement about improbability has no meaning.

It would be like throwing three dice, and getting a six, and a one, and a three, and then being amazed at the improbability of getting that sequence, but not realizing that there is nothing special in that particular sequence. All possible outcomes are equally valid, and no one result should be seen as inevitable or expected. Only if the sequence of 6-1-3 was predicted prior to throwing the dice, would probability be a factor. After the event, the odds are precisely one to one.

Another way to examine this is to consider the lottery. Let's say that John Smith wins the lottery, a hundred million to one chance. He could say to himself: "The odds were a hundred million to one against me winning the lottery, so there could be no way I actually won. It is too improbable." But the fact is he won, just like the fact that we ARE HERE on Earth. If, however, someone predicted that John Smith was going to win the lottery before he actually won, and then he won at 100 million to 1 odds, well that would be extraordinarily improbable, and we would probably have to suspect some cheating somewhere. Conversely, if someone who was able to observe the Earth 4.5 billion years ago predicted the eventual domination of the planet Earth by Humankind, that would indeed be impossibly improbable. In short, there is no way to statistically prove that we did not evolve.

Live debates with anti-evolutionists are usually counter-productive. The usual anti-evolutionary tactic is not to inform the audience, but rather to cast doubt upon evolution by innuendo, mischaracterization, misquotation, and outright lies. The live debate does not offer one a leisurely opportunity to then show the faults in the torrent of claims made by the anti-evolutionary side. As one wag put it, "They can make more false claims in five minutes than one can rebut in five hours."

I would make an exception for broadcast debates, but even then one should have a plan and then make sure it gets executed. Research the opponent, find any juicy whoppers that they have told in print or reliably on tape, and hold their feet to the fire.

Don't accept that one has to defend every silly statement ever made by anyone claiming to support evolution. There have been and continue to be stupid people on both sides of the issue.

Specifically, one could point out concerning Pierson's challenge that while the data doesn't permit showing every single generation from any lineage from the present back to a single-celled forebear, that there is plenty of evidence the does support the theory of common descent. First, one can remind people of the Passenger pigeon, a bird that was once so numerous that flights could blacken the sky from horizon to horizon, and which is now extinct. Despite the fact that Passenger pigeons had hard parts, there are no fossil specimens whatever of the Passenger pigeon. SO, if one were called upon to produce a fossil lineage starting with the Passenger pigeon, one would be stymied at the start. While the fossil record is fragmentary, it is perfectly sufficient to discredit and falsify certain conjectures. The concept of extinction faced tough going because most people accepted a theological doctrine of plenitude, which held that God would not allow a species of His creation to suffer complete extermination. Cuvier was able to demonstrate through fossil specimens that extinction was a real possibility, and had happened in the past. The fossil reality falsified the doctrine of plenitude. Another doctrine, that of "special creation", fell to the fossil record somewhat later. "Special creation" held that each species embodied a though in the Mind of God, and that its existence was immutable througout its residence on earth. Soon, the evidence of the fossil record dispatched that idea as false. One can find that modern creationists often substitute the word "kind" into that doctrine. Over time, one finds that creationist doctrine evolves to more closely resemble evolutionary biology. Instead of having God create billions and billions of separate species and some multiple of that of varieties of those species, one finds the modern creationist discussing "kinds". When pressed to give a definition of "kind", what tends to pop out bears an uncanny resemblance to the biological term "clade". By dint of embracing "within-kind" evolution, modern creationists manage to cut down the number of separate creation events that their God must have performed. The number goes down from billions to mere tens of thousands, with some forward-looking creationists going so far as to claim comfort with having groups as broad as phyla being identified as kinds. Thus creationist conjectures are steadily diminishing the number of creation events needed to sustain their doctrine, and asymptotically approaching the figure proposed by common descent: One.

Perhaps one need only wait a while, and the concepts of evolutionary biology will be co-opted in their entirety by the creationists.

Wesley

• The "shrinking sun" argument is a falsehood. This is documented in this archive, by Glenn Morton and also in Chapter 3 of Van Till et al.'s Science Held Hostage.
• The "lunar recession" argument is a falsehood, as documented in the March '99 feedback (search for the word "recession" in the page).
• The "change to Earth's rotation rate" argument is a falsehood, as documented in the May '98 feedback (search for "rotation" in the page). In fact the data in this area is evidence against your position: on a young Earth there shouldn't be a different rotation rate represented in the fossil record (as this document demonstrates).

It's a common creationist practice: fling out a large number of garbage arguments, and hope that your opponent isn't familiar with some of them and they'll stick despite being false. It's a good way to score debating points, but it's dishonest.

Rather than worrying about our ability to refute every last one (the other two have been handled in talk.origins before), you should worry about the quality of the source that armed you with at least three fibs out of five arguments. How confident can you be that the remaining two claims are any better?

For creationists, no evidence, no matter how strong or how much of it, would be enough.

You might start by learning that the bible is not accurate, contains errors and contradictions, and has many moral dilemmas.

Fortunately, some people have actually investigated this matter, and have documented rather different conclusions based upon the evidence.

There was a rather large book written over a century ago documenting just the kind of thing that Randy says does not exist. The title was "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals". The author was Charles Robert Darwin.

More recent texts on animal behavior might also prove illuminating for Randy. Alcock's text is a standard.

I hear that proper operation of the CAPS LOCK key is something that has to be learned, and is not instinctual. ;-)

Wesley

Every day, in a journal of some kind, documented evidence appears that genes are far more malleable and can have much greater effects than creationists claim they can. One class of genes in particular, the Hox genes, appear across classes where they have major effects in the development of major body plans. Rather than give you the standard run of web references, I refer you to this lovely article. There's another one with it, but I don't have a reference right now:

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998 Sep 1;95(18):10671-5
Expression of homeobox genes shows chelicerate arthropods retain their deutocerebral segment.
Telford MJ, Thomas RH
Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, United Kingdom.

Expression patterns of six homeobox containing genes in a model chelicerate, the oribatid mite Archegozetes longisetosus, were examined to establish homology of chelicerate and insect head segments and to investigate claims that the chelicerate deutocerebral segment has been reduced or lost. engrailed (en) expression, which has been used to demonstrate the presence of segments in insects, fails to demonstrate a reduced deutocerebral segment. Expression patterns of the chelicerate homologs of the Drosophila genes Antennapedia (Antp), Sex combs reduced (Scr), Deformed (Dfd), proboscipedia (pb), and orthodenticle (otd) confirm direct correspondence of head segments. The chelicerate deutocerebral segment has not been reduced or lost. We make further inferences concerning the evolution of heads and Hox genes in arthropods.

This paper shows how the entire range of body plans of arthropods (spiders, insects, crustaceans, etc) are generated with a similar range of genes. The argument can be extended to other body plans, including animal plans. We share homologous genes with - for example - worms (annelids) in our own development, which is why studying simpler organisms is useful to understanding more complex ones. Moreover, it shows how novel structures evolve with only minor changes in the timing and location of the expression of existing genes.

This is only one of literally thousands of experimental and observational papers of its kind. Trying to summarise them would be like trying to show from all street directories that roads exist. It's so basic to the science that it is incredible to those who read it, and I'm only an amateur, that anyone could deny it happens.

I hope this helps.

Thanks for the compliments.

When dealing with the second law of thermodynamics objections, I like to question the person claiming that a problem exists to demonstrate what, precisely, that problem might be. Evolutionary processes do not require anything that does not happen in the usual course of growth and reproduction. If there is some thermodynamically inviable process associated with evolutionary change, your correspondent should be able to identify what that process is, identify which evolutionary mechanism theory requires it, and be able to show that it does not actually occur in living populations.

I don't much like the "See the sun up there?" type responses to the anti-evolutionary claims. It is not really relevant. Making those who claim problems between thermodynamics and evolution get specific about it seems to me to be the better option.

Wesley

It does not cover the early origins of life. Neither does evolutionary theory. Both cell theory and evolutionary theory are theories that explain the processes of life since it began, although several researchers - Sidney Fox and Eörs Száthmáry being two - have accounts of how the pre-biotic chemistry came to be wrapped up or compartmentalised in protocells.

Take faith, dear reader -- ignorance is a curable disease. You are taking exactly the right medicine.

Evolutionists don't mock creationists for the fact that they disagree with us. We might bring forth their claims in an unflattering light, because of the sheer ignorance of some of the claims, and we might expose them when they make up references, figures or quotations. But we don't mock them for simply disagreeing with us. Anyone has the right to disagree.

Theories are scientific explanations of how nature works, built up logically from observations and experiments. Formulating theories is what science is FOR. What makes the theories of evolutionists good theories are that they conform to the facts, they are testable, repeatable, demonstrable, and potentially falsifiable. Creationism has yet to provide a "theory" for scientists to test.

Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

Actually, Sir Peter Medawar addressed the issue of why we die. He came up with an answer in 1957 that continues to be the basis of most such explanations today.

Medawar's explanation is fairly detailed, but the essential concept underlying it concerns the age structure of populations. The most critical part of a population are those individuals just about to enter the age class at which reproduction of new individuals is possible. Members of older age classes contribute less and less of the future of the group. Now, consider a population which starts with individuals which could, potentially, be immortal. That is, there is no in-built reason for them to experience old age. But, over time, external circumstances can cause mortality. As the population moves along through time, suppose that certain traits which affect early fecundity arise in the population. Soon, the population comes to be characterized by individuals who are likely to have traits that enhance early fecundity. Now, either by linkage to traits that result in senescence or through pleiotropic affects (such that the "early fecundity" trait also influences "later senescence"), the population can come to be composed of individuals who reproduce early and die off at a later point in the life history.

There are certain species whose members do not appear to have any strong tendency toward senescence, or whose senescence is long delayed. Certain fish of the carp family are an example. But in most vertebrates, senescence is just the way things are, like it or lump it.

Wesley

The answers scientists expect to receive are ones based on testable, observable reality, not mythology, magic and blind faith.

However, the origins of biomolcules are better understood. For a start, they are naturally synthesised in space and occur in comets and meteors known as carbonaceous chondrites. An article by NASA researcher Max Berstein appeared in a recent Scientific American.

Something you might think about, considering these polls. In the USA, most people who accept the scientific arguments in favor of evolution also believe in God.

The first to publish Woodmorappe's identity was apparently Tom McIver, who saw him at a conference with a name tag bearing his real name. See McIver's Antievolution, p. 88.

Wesley

God might have packed the entire diversity of life into a testtube, sitting on Noah's desk. God might have made the ark work according to different physical laws, to overcome the problems of the engineering stresses on a wooden box that size. God might have made the whole thing happen in Noah's and his family's imagination. Once you reject explanation, you can do anything you like. Just don't suggest it has anything to do with science, and we'll all be happy.

This isn't a new concept, and many of us have seen it before. It got its most extended and intellectual treatment in the book "Omphalos" by Gosse in the late 1850's. "Omphalos" means "navel", and Gosse proposed that the proper way for God to have created things is with the "appearance of age". Thus, Gosse answered the old question of "Did Adam have a navel?" in the affirmative.

An all-powerful omphalic creator need not have created some 6000 years ago. A sufficiently spiffy omphalic creator could just as well have created everything last Tuesday (or Thursday), with the remaining 0.00000000001% of change having occurred due to the usual evolutionary processes.

Wesley

1. Real Networks doesn't give away the Real video server for free. The license costs quite a bit.
2. The Talk.Origins Archive does not possess the rights to these TV debates. Again, we'd have to invest a large chunk of change to get those rights.
3. At the Talk.Origins Archive, we feel that while scientific results are decided on observations and experimentation, debates are decided on rhetoric. The pithy questions of creationists win debates; the complex answers of the real world lose debates. They're just not that helpful for resolving the issues.
4. We have no money to afford these things. Despite its professional appearance, the Talk.Origins Archive is a 100% volunteer effort.

On the other hand, if anyone wanted to donate those debates to us, we sure wouldn't mind . . . .

1. Thermodynamics: Evolutionary processes do not require any different chemical pathways than those which are in use in ordinary reproduction and development of living organisms. The claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is logically equivalent to the claim that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. No one has yet demonstrated thermodynamic inviability of any process utilized by living organisms.
   
   
2. Cambrian explosion: The major groups discussed as resulting from the Cambrian explosion are primarily soft-bodied invertebrates, and a few soft-bodied chordates. The fossil record shows the "explosion" to be more of a deflagration than a detonation. That is, the "explosion" occurs across a considerable span of geologic time. While the Cambrian explosion would discomfit those who would hold to a concept of evolution occurring at some constant and slow pace, fortunately few biologists past or present would endorse such a view of life's history. Moreover, molecular evidence suggests that the probable last common ancestor of the metazoan phyla lived some 1.1 billion years ago. There is a lot of time intervening between 1.1 BYA and the Cambrian explosion. More data would definitely be better than less data, but the fossil record so far has not yielded any definitive answer to the actual timing and pathways of descent that result in the Cambrian explosion.
   
   
3. Darwin and repudiation of NS: I think Himmelfarb is projecting what she would like to see.
   
   

4. Percent of an eye: Have a look at the eye of the sea slug in Hermissenda spp. (See the book by Daniel Alkon on memory traces in the brain.). It's an eye cup, open to seawater. There is no retina, as in a general tissue lining with receptors more of less evenly distributed. Instead, receptors are arranged in definite groups. The arrangement allows the sea slug to detect certain kinds of motion and orientation of objects in the "visual field". The connections of these receptors are hard-wired to specific ganglia, and typically produce a specific behavior when stimulated.

   In general, there are many currently existing examples of light-sensitive biological systems which illustrate useful sensory organs, but which have levels of complexity ranging from essentially a light-sensitive spot up through and including a complete camera-style eye.

Wesley

Having said that, let me note that there is a claim now discredited that Edward Blyth discovered all of the theory of evolution and that Darwin dishonestly stole from him all his key ideas, due to Loren Eiseley, which is dealt with in a footnote in the FAQ. If this is what you mean, I'm afraid it is wrong.

And the so-called bible codes are thouroughly explained and debunked at Hidden Messages and The Bible Code and Bible-Code Developments. It's interesting to note that the phrase "Darwin was right" was also discovered using the bible code.

Abstract Ancient crustal rocks provide the only direct evidence for the processes and products of early Earth differentiation. SHRIMP zircon U-Th-Pb dating has identified, amongst the Acasta gneisses of the western Slave Province, Canada, two metatonalites and a metagranodiorite that have igneous ages of 4002 ± 4, 4012 ± 6 and 4031 ± 3 Ma respectively. These are the first identified Priscoan terrestrial rocks. A record of metamorphic events at ~3.75, ~3.6 and ~1.7 Ga also is preserved. These discoveries approximately double, to ~40 km², the area over which ~4.0 Ga gneisses are known to occur. A single older zircon core in one sample suggests that rocks as old as 4.06 Ga might yet be found in the region. As early as 4.03 Ga, terrestrial differentiation was already producing tonalitic magmas, probably by partial melting of pre-existing, less differentiated crust.

In any event, the laws of physics as we know them act much differently close to the zero time of the Big Bang, and may not apply at all to time "before" the Big Bang, if indeed such a thing exists. In short, there is no reason (now) to think that mass-energy conservation applies to the Big Bang. The only scientific answer at this point is "We don't know."

Certainly one can posit a supernatural Creator, but then the old question "Who created the Creator?" remains unanswered.

Nope, haven't heard of him.... But I did some looking.

From "Fitting the Bible to the Data", a critique of Schroeder's book "The Science of God":

Primitive life first appears in cosmic day three. Here again it takes some mighty stretching to associate what is described in the Bible for the third day, including fruit trees, with the primitive life described by paleontology for that epoch.

Schroeder has the sun, moon, and stars becoming visible in cosmic day four. In fact, Genesis seems to say the that sun, moon, and stars are created at that time - well after the earth was created.

Cosmic day five has the waters teeming with life. But the biblical verses imply birds as well. Schroeder says that "birds" is a mistranslation and that the Bible here is referring to water insects instead. Translation is so easy when you know what you want a passage to say.

Cosmic day six contains the mass extinctions of life that occurred 65 million years ago. The biblical verses referenced make no mention of mass extinction. The Biblical Flood occurs well after Adam, but Schroeder needs to end the six days of creation with Adam for other purposes. This is one event he simply cannot make fit, although he is not honest enough to say so and leaves the impression that everything is consistent.

Why so? You give no reasons to support your ambiguous claim.

Point two. The Cambrian explosion. First let me say that if you use the Cambrian Explosion to illustrate a point, then you admit the authenticity of the geologic column as a record of billions of years of history, and not piled up mud and silt from a 40 day flood. You should read this article by Chris Nedin and learn that the Cambrian Explosion wasn't so instantaneous as people make out.

Just what do you mean by "the notion that these traits develop slowly over time"? According to Dawkins, "Even with conservative assumptions, the time taken to evolve a fish eye from flat skin was minuscule: fewer than 400,000 generations. For the kinds of small animals we are talking about, we can assume one generation per year, so it seems that it would take less than half a million years to evolve a good camera eye. In the light of Nilsson and Pelger's results, it is no wonder "the" eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom. There has been enough time for it to evolve from scratch 1,500 times in succession within any one lineage."

That's not exactly "slowly over time". In fact, it's nearly too rapid a time to measure in geological terms. In any case, what are you implying? That organisms were dropped into the oceans, fully formed, 650 million years ago?

I'm not impressed with anything you've written here. ...

Creationism is not an evidence-based system, it is a doctrinally based dogma. Hence, no amount of factual information will sway them.

But the problem comes up when we ask "What if you found out that some part of your investigation was wrong? Wouldn't that new discovery, of an error in your research, mean that your conclusion might be wrong? Isn't in possible that some idea can be overturned and, even though you thought it a fact, be discovered false?"

So far as we can make out, the tools of science cannot discover absolute truth. If "fact" is going to mean "absolutely true statement", then scientific research cannot discover any facts.

Science just isn't up to the sort of totally rigorous proof such as you will find in mathematics. Our standards of "fact" and "proof" have to be weaker than those of the pure mathematician, simply because we don't have the luxury of defining our universe and what goes in it.

You fail to understand that the evolution of music happens not on entire songs, but on phrases and sometimes entire bars. Rarely, we get whole melodies passed on, as when the song "He's so fine" evolved into "My Sweet Lord". The actual recordings are just the phenotypes, or as they are known in the music industry, "performances", that the genotypes ("scores") produce.

I do hope that this resolves your difficulties with the evolution of the Beatles, and indeed of the modern pop music industry.